Should you upload two disavow files during an HTTPS migration?

Why does Google separate HTTP and HTTPS in Search Console?

In Google's ecosystem, HTTP and HTTPS are treated as two distinct properties in Search Console. It's not just a matter of protocol: Google treats them as separate entities with their own crawl data, individual temporary indexes, and their own disavow files.

This technical separation means that a disavow file uploaded for http://example.com does not automatically apply to https://example.com. During an HTTPS migration, there exists a transitional period where both versions coexist in the index, even if you've correctly set up your 301 redirects.

What happens during the transition period?

The HTTPS migration is never instantaneous from Google's perspective. The engine must recrawl your entire site, discover the redirects, transfer ranking signals, and gradually consolidate the two versions.

During this phase, which can last several weeks for large sites, Google may still assess backlinks pointing to your HTTP version. If you have previously disavowed toxic links only for the HTTP property, those disavowals do not automatically protect your HTTPS version during the transition.

Is this recommendation still relevant today?

The question is worth asking. The disavow file is a last-resort tool that Google recommends using sparingly. Since the real-time Penguin 4.0 algorithm, Google claims to automatically ignore most low-quality links.

However, for sites that have historically suffered from negative SEO attacks or engaged in aggressive link-building, the disavow file remains a legitimate protection. In such specific cases, Mueller's recommendation holds its relevance: it's better to double the protection during migration.

• HTTP and HTTPS are distinct Search Console properties with separate disavow files
• The HTTPS migration creates a transitional period of several weeks where both versions coexist in the index
• A disavow uploaded only for HTTP does not automatically protect the HTTPS version
• This precaution mainly applies to sites with a documented history of toxic links
• Google gradually consolidates signals, but no guarantee of precise timing is provided

Is this statement consistent with real-world observations?

In principle, Mueller's technical logic is impeccable. Tests indeed show that Search Console data is not instantly transferred between HTTP and HTTPS. We regularly observe delays of several days, even weeks, in link reports.

However, the central question remains: does this delay actually impact ranking during the migration? Real-world data is less clear-cut. Most well-executed HTTPS migrations do not show visible penalties related to backlinks, even without duplication of the disavow file. [To be verified]: the actual impact of a non-duplicated disavow during the transition remains difficult to measure in isolation.

In what cases does this recommendation become critical?

Let's be honest: if your backlink profile is healthy and natural, duplicating the disavow file is more about excessive caution than SEO urgency. Most sites simply do not need an active disavow file.

The situation changes radically for three specific profiles. Firstly, sites that have already received a manual action related to unnatural links: here, the slightest flaw can reactivate Google's scrutiny. Secondly, sites in ultra-competitive niches (casino, pharma, finance) where negative SEO is a common practice. Thirdly, sites that have migrated from expired domains or purchases of domains with dubious history.

What mistakes should be avoided when applying this advice?

The classic mistake is to create a disavow file